Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Dogzof95]

Two men caught dancing around stolen pot plant, engaging in lewd act at Flinders St Station

TWO naked men seen dancing around a stolen pot plant at a busy Melbourne train station last night have been arrested by police.

Video footage taken last night at Flinders Street train station around 11pm has emerged and shows two men appearing to perform a lewd act.

Witness Samantha Lenkic told the Herald Sun said the whole incident was strange.

“The two men started taking off their clothes and getting a bit intimate,” Ms Lenkic told the Herald Sun.

“I’ve never seen anything like it, I was stunned ... it was quite gross and not clearly something I want to see.”

She said the men were dancing around a pot plant before they appeared to engage in a lewd act.

Victoria Police confirm two men have been arrested and are expected to be charged on summons with wilful and obscene exposure and theft.

“PSOs arrested two men, a 25-year-old man from Flemington man and 22-year-old man from Richmond,” police spokeswoman Leonie Johnson said.

“They were arrested after reports they were allegedly seen naked on the platform and stole two pot plants from outside Melbourne Town Hall.”

Ms Lenkic said there were many witnesses.

“It was busy, there were lots of people on the platforms with dozens of people watching on,” she said.

“One elderly woman started yelling at them saying they were absolutely disgusting and they should be fined.

“Others were shocked, some people were laughing watching it all unfold.”

Metro Trains has referred all queries to Victoria Police.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...n/news-story/7436fa975245a26d849f32ed864e0437

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Could someone be taken through a legal or administrative process because they expressed a view towards traditional marriage which offended somebody? That would be my main concern.

I also think civil celebrants should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple.

The "views toward traditional marriage" is covered by freedom of speech.

As for the civil celebrants, I agree. But I support freedom of trade. Anyone should be able to refuse trade with anyone for any reason unless there's no other options available.

 

[CaptainJackson]

The "views toward traditional marriage" is covered by freedom of speech.

As for the civil celebrants, I agree. But I support freedom of trade. Anyone should be able to refuse trade with anyone for any reason unless there's no other options available.

Civil celebrants are acting on behalf of the government. If they discriminate it means the government discriminates

Religious marriages are different, It is the government officially recognizing a religious marriage

 

[DoggiesBoy]

I read that a number of labor senators voted against it.

2 labor senators voted against it, 6 lib/national senators voted against it. No surprises there

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Civil celebrants are acting on behalf of the government. If they discriminate it means the government discriminates

Religious marriages are different, It is the government officially recognizing a religious marriage

Nah. Religious celebrants are also acting on behalf of the government. They're just acting on behalf of the government and God while the civil celebrants are only acting on behalf of the government. If the religious celebrants weren't acting on behalf of the government then their weddings would have no legal standing.

 

[GoTheDoggies]

Did you see those clowns in parliament today? They were crying and cheering, acting like they are messiahs for helping this legislation through. "What a moment in history" lol please no one will remember this in 3 years time.

 

[The DoggFather]

Did you see those clowns in parliament today? They were crying and cheering, acting like they are messiahs for helping this legislation through. "What a moment in history" lol please no one will remember this in 3 years time.

They did fuck all, Australia spoke, they have no option but either listen or commit career suicide. They get no congrats from me and don't deserve any congrats.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Nah. Religious celebrants are also acting on behalf of the government. They're just acting on behalf of the government and God while the civil celebrants are only acting on behalf of the government. If the religious celebrants weren't acting on behalf of the government then their weddings would have no legal standing.

To a degree, The freedom of religion clause gives religious celebrants a right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, hence it's an exception to the government's stance.

Civil celebrants act on behalf of the government and anti-discrimantion laws take priority

In any case if a civil celebrant has religious concerns in performing their duty they should find another job as they are not fit to perform their secular state sanctioned duties

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Did you see those clowns in parliament today? They were crying and cheering, acting like they are messiahs for helping this legislation through. "What a moment in history" lol please no one will remember this in 3 years time.

They're don't have to remember it in 3 years time. In two years time when the election is up the Liberals will make sure that everyone remembers it.

 

[Dawgfather]

Did you see those clowns in parliament today? They were crying and cheering, acting like they are messiahs for helping this legislation through. "What a moment in history" lol please no one will remember this in 3 years time.

I was thinking the same thing.

If this is the biggest achievement of these political fk wits then they are certainly setting the bar low.

This is a figurative change to the law that will have no measurable impact on equality or gay rights, because gays already held the same legal rights.

A law that will effect less than a few % of Australians.

Can this SSM shit be out of the media already so we can discuss something important?

 

[Dawgfather]

To a degree, The freedom of religion clause gives religious celebrants a right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, hence it's an exception to the government's stance.

Civil celebrants act on behalf of the government and anti-discrimantion laws take priority

In any case if a civil celebrant has religious concerns in performing their duty they should find another job as they are not fit to perform their secular state sanctioned duties

You don’t have to be religious for having a reason to disagree with SSM. I know plenty of ppl who voted no who have no religious affiliation.

 

[The DoggFather]

To a degree, The freedom of religion clause gives religious celebrants a right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, hence it's an exception to the government's stance.

Civil celebrants act on behalf of the government and anti-discrimantion laws take priority

In any case if a civil celebrant has religious concerns in performing their duty they should find another job as they are not fit to perform their secular state sanctioned duties

Couldn't say that better myself.

But as we have seen, fuckwits everywhere ruin everything. Like I always say, live and let live HAS to be a 2 way street.

 

[The DoggFather]

You don’t have to be religious for having a reason to disagree with SSM. I know plenty of ppl who voted no who have no religious affiliation.

I think it the most vile and putrid act a human can do after pedophilia, but behind closed doors, that gay shit, as long as it is consenual, who the fuck cares?

I try to be a good Christian but I would torture and slaughter any evil **** that comes near my family and friends, enjoy it and hand my self in to the cops. Most people think me doing that is vile and putrid.

Keep it away from people who do not want to see it and especially children. LALL.

 

[The DoggFather]

I was thinking the same thing.

If this is the biggest achievement of these political fk wits then they are certainly setting the bar low.

This is a figurative change to the law that will have no measurable impact on equality or gay rights, because gays already held the same legal rights.

A law that will effect less than a few % of Australians.

Can this SSM shit be out of the media already so we can discuss something important?

Not part of their agenda my friend...

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You don’t have to be religious for having a reason to disagree with SSM. I know plenty of ppl who voted no who have no religious affiliation.

That's true, but the difference is that one reason is a valid discriminatory reason in the eyes of the law and the other isn't.

Effectively a non-religious person refusing to marry a gay couple is no different to a non-religious person refusing to marry a black couple or an Asian couple. It's basic discrimination.

As I said earlier, my stance has always been that anyone should be able to choose who they serve with their business. We're at the stage where the majority of people wouldn't discriminate so let the business stand on its own. If they want to discriminate then it's their business that will suffer.

But it has to be all or nothing. We can't have laws that say "you're allowed to discriminate against gays but no one else". It has to be all or nothing.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I was thinking the same thing.

If this is the biggest achievement of these political fk wits then they are certainly setting the bar low.

This is a figurative change to the law that will have no measurable impact on equality or gay rights, because gays already held the same legal rights.

A law that will effect less than a few % of Australians.

Can this SSM shit be out of the media already so we can discuss something important?

I'm going to start a news network called "Gay News" just for you

 

[Dawgfather]

That's true, but the difference is that one reason is a valid discriminatory reason in the eyes of the law and the other isn't.

Effectively a non-religious person refusing to marry a gay couple is no different to a non-religious person refusing to marry a black couple or an Asian couple. It's basic discrimination.

As I said earlier, my stance has always been that anyone should be able to choose who they serve with their business. We're at the stage where the majority of people wouldn't discriminate so let the business stand on its own. If they want to discriminate then it's their business that will suffer.

But it has to be all or nothing. We can't have laws that say "you're allowed to discriminate against gays but no one else". It has to be all or nothing.

Agree with all of that.

 

[Dawgfather]

I'm going to start a news network called "Gay News" just for you

lol would rather stab my eye with a pencil.

 

[Wahesh]

They're don't have to remember it in 3 years time. In two years time when the election is up the Liberals will make sure that everyone remembers it.

I think that Labor will try and get as many people to vote against this bill as possible so they can use it as a tool in their election campaign.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I think that Labor will try and get as many people to vote against this bill as possible so they can use it as a tool in their election campaign.

Too late. They already voted on the bill yesterday. Only a couple of Labor senators voted against it, the rest voted for it. It still has to go through the lower house but if Labor voted against it then they couldn't use it as a political tool. If they started saying "We will give you gay marriage" people would say "No, you're the reason we don't have gay marriage"

Liberals were very smart with this one. They made it very public. If the bill doesn't pass then the entire public will know why it didn't pass. If Labor vote No they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. If they vote Yes then Liberals will claim victory. The only thing Labor can do that will save them is if they vote Yes and say that this was a team effort. If they vote No then they won't win the next election.